Judge's ruling is more evidence that Trump is a criminal

Never claimed it was rocket science. On the other it would appear that half of DC is in possession of classified documents of one sort of the other half of whom appear to not even have known they had it. How many times did Biden say they've got it all and then more was found? So why are they only making a federal case out of it when it involves Trump?

 

Right! Seven years of evidence that Trump is a criminal is VERY compelling evidence that he is a proven criminal.

 

From what I understand the only money the government got from Manafort is the money he already owed the IRS. That's not recouping any money spent on the Mueller investigation.

 

Your sentence structure is poorly made. The word "suggests" should follow "evidence that". Still, evidence is presented in every trial and it doesn't always "prove" the accused is guilty of a crime. Are you sure you don't need more research on how the judiciary system works?

 

Except your supposed evidence is mostly little more than a vaguely useful fiction or you would have managed to convict him of something by now.

Meanwhile I've seen more than sufficient evidence to suggest that much our current Democratic regime is not only criminal but traitorous as well.

 

Right! They lose privilege only if the JUDGE believes the privilege has been used to commit a crime. Thus adding even MORE evidence to the bulk we already had that Trump is a PROVEN criminal.

Regardless of whether Trump is ever convicted or not, he will go down in history as a PROVEN criminal. Like Al Capone, who was only convicted for tax evasion. But proof is plentiful that he committed way more crimes than that. So history will know those who supported Trump at this point, supported a PROVEN criminal.

 

I can think of very few things that prove in a more compelling way that my arguments stand, then somebody criticizing the sentence structure in lieu of the sentence CONTENT.

Obviously what you meant was that the sentence was not "politically correct". I think we need to be beyond that, in the case of Trump. It's CORRECT, which is all that matters. So don't bother...

Knowing that this would be the Trump supporter's favorite strawman, I addressed this no less than 3 or 4 times to explain why it is NOT what the thread is about. Read it! More attentively this time, please. Spoiler alert: this thread has NOTHING to do with any "trial".

 

It's a demonstrable case you have had nothing for seven years where he has never been proven to be a criminal. Cite the case where he was proven a criminal.

 

You are ignoring one very important detail. That conviction includes a lawyer and hearing the other side of the story. We are hearing what has been mostly generated by the democrats.

I am not confusing "proven" with "convicted". I am pointing out the lack of logic in your statement.

 

Your post, in light of what the OP explains, is even more evidence that he IS a proven criminal. Or, at least, that you also understand that he is.

 

Again, you've misspoke. You meant to say: "any trial conducted in a legal court setting." Although, not legally binding, the court of public opinion is what this thread is about. You have put Trump on trial in that court.

 

Which was explained no less than 3 times in the OP.

If you want to call it that. But it's only the opinion of the part of the public that is concerned with facts and evidence. The "opinion" of those who follow Trump in a cult-like fashion is not really of much interest. I'm not sure if this last approach can be called "opinion" or if it would be more adequate to call it "sermonizing". But the point is that it's of little interest.

Besides the fact that it's not the "court" aspect I am interested in. But the awareness aspect. In other words, that people are AWARE that there is so much evidence available to the public that Trump is a criminal that we can safely say that this has been PROVEN.

 

Seven years of whining and bitching is not evidence of anything.

 

One last question. "Proven" to who? The obvious answer seems to be, to people that wants Trump to be proven a criminal simply for ruining their plans to coronate Hillary. That's very similar to what happened during the Salem witch trials. It's evidence "proved" they were witches. How many innocent people were put to death as a result of it's "proof"?

 

The "obvious answer" is in the post you quoted. Don't you read the posts you quote?

Who's Hillary?

And did this... Hillary person have anything to do with ruining the plans to coronate Trump on January 6? Is that why you're mad at him/her?

 

Please don't project your feelings onto me. It only looks foolish.

 

"Project"? I don't even know who this "Hillary" you're ranting about is.

 

Low hanging fruit, is all you've got?

 

Ah! Come on! You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.

On the other hand, you WERE the one who brought up "coronating" in a thread about Trump. Given that the orange idol is the only one who thought he deserved a "coronation" and incited an insurrection to make it happen.

You should've seen it coming that it would backfire.

 

Backfire? The fact that you're trying so hard to defend yourself suggests I hit the target straight on.

 

Oh... I'm an EASY target. And I have many vulnerabilities you can attack. But attacking ME, even if your attack succeeds, will not remove the fact that your idol IS a proven criminal. In fact, attacking me instead of making an argument to counter mine about your orange idol, helps prove my point.

 

I think someone in the Grand Jury is having a difficult time indicting a ham sandwich.

 

See, here again is where you're wrong. I'm not attacking you; I'm attacking your arguments. However, suggesting that Trump is my "idol" could be construed as a personal atrack. So far, all I've done is pointed out what is wrong with your argument about "proven". That doesn't even involve Trump, it's about your logic. You present more straw with each new post.

 

Maybe Bragg used too much fillers in his meat. Fake meat doesn't taste good.

 

You said:

YOU: "The fact that you're trying so hard to defend yourself suggests I hit the target straight on" Why would you perceive me as defending myself if you were attacking my arguments?

The ONLY argument you have made about "proven" is repeating what I already said in the OP. And you perceived the fact that I keep pointing out to you that it's there as defending myself.